168 réponses à ce sujet

[Inprea]

One thing I really enjoyed in Dragon Age Origins was Red cliff. What made it so enjoyable for me was the fact that your performance in the battle mattered. Characters could be permanently killed and you were rewarded, though moderately, if you did well. I didn't have much use for the helm. This is the type of thing I am use to only seeing in strategy based games that perhaps have an rpg element to them.

A few fun strategy/rpg mixes had a feature where your allies opinion of you lowered each time you let them fall in battle and that influenced their performance as well as the ending. If you never let them fall they were fanatical in their devotion at the end.

Does anyone else hope that they're going to be several battles where your performance in the battle matters?

If the Inquisitor saves everyone the people are ready to go down on their knees in amazement. If you barely save anyone people wonder if it would have been better if you never came at all. If you save a moderate amount you're a noble person but nothing legendary.

Of course perhaps the higher you raise the bar the greater the fall will be. After all. If you're believed to be unbeatable then even a slight loss could do a lot of damage to your reputation.

[The Elder King]

There are ways to save both the village and the keep, according to Bioware. I think it'd depend on the time limit you have. For example, if you choose to save the keep, there'll be a time limit during which you can save it. But we saw i the demo that we can go to save the village despite the previous choice, so we might be able to save the village first and the to saving the keep. The upgrades we can do to the keeps might give more time to save the keep, so it'd be easier to accomplishing saving both.
I think it's going to be tough saving both, and maybe if you manage to save both, the keep and the village are in a worse condition than they'd be if you stick to save one (just speculating).

[TheKomandorShepard]

hhh89 wrote...

There are ways to save both the village and the keep, according to Bioware. I think it'd depend on the time limit you have. For example, if you choose to save the keep, there'll be a time limit during which you can save it. But we saw i the demo that we can go to save the village despite the previous choice, so we might be able to save the village first and the to saving the keep. The upgrades we can do to the keeps might give more time to save the keep, so it'd be easier to accomplishing saving both.
I think it's going to be tough saving both, and maybe if you manage to save both, the keep and the village are in a worse condition than they'd be if you stick to save one (just speculating).

Well i don't think that there will dependend on time limit because as soon you reached keep village was destroyed automatically.


On topic da is dark fantasy so there shouldn't be save everyone and be full of sadistic choices well if you want idealistic story maybe you need buy other game because there is no place for such thing.  

[Inprea]

hhh89 wrote...

There are ways to save both the village and the keep, according to Bioware. I think it'd depend on the time limit you have. For example, if you choose to save the keep, there'll be a time limit during which you can save it. But we saw i the demo that we can go to save the village despite the previous choice, so we might be able to save the village first and the to saving the keep. The upgrades we can do to the keeps might give more time to save the keep, so it'd be easier to accomplishing saving both.
I think it's going to be tough saving both, and maybe if you manage to save both, the keep and the village are in a worse condition than they'd be if you stick to save one (just speculating).

Well saving two things at the same time should be more difficult then just protecting one of them. That's just a given. However, I hope that the condition they're left it depends on our choices and performance.

I'm thinking a little along the lines of playing a healer in world of warcraft in a battle ground. They're two bases under attack. I rush to one and top off a few people's health but instead of waiting for that battle to end I mount up and quickly rush to another battle. I'm trusting the defenders I just healed to finish things up so I'm free to go help the others.

It might be similar. You start off defending the keep but then see the village under attack. Now you have to decide if you've done enough to dampen the enemies attack tat you can go save the village while intrusting the keep's defenders to stand on their own. The quicker you kill the enemies at one location the more time you have to save the other and the more likely it is to stand on its own.

[Fast Jimmy]

I'm torn about this.

On one hand, having story outcomes that vary depending on gameplay is something I really like. But, on the other hand, many players will just reload or drop down to easy to get the "best outcome" evey time. If that's the case, where it becomes just tedium that most players realize the ways to game the system to get the happiest outcomes, what is really gained? It isn't a darker story, it is just a game with a happy path that takes some tedium to get and also story content if you fail to get the happy path instead of a "Game Over" screen.

I'm not sure if that's the best way. Then again, binary choices via dialogue may, also, not be the best way.

[frankf43]

Inprea wrote...

One thing I really enjoyed in Dragon Age Origins was Red cliff. What made it so enjoyable for me was the fact that your performance in the battle mattered. Characters could be permanently killed and you were rewarded, though moderately, if you did well. I didn't have much use for the helm. This is the type of thing I am use to only seeing in strategy based games that perhaps have an rpg element to them.

A few fun strategy/rpg mixes had a feature where your allies opinion of you lowered each time you let them fall in battle and that influenced their performance as well as the ending. If you never let them fall they were fanatical in their devotion at the end.

Does anyone else hope that they're going to be several battles where your performance in the battle matters?

If the Inquisitor saves everyone the people are ready to go down on their knees in amazement. If you barely save anyone people wonder if it would have been better if you never came at all. If you save a moderate amount you're a noble person but nothing legendary.

Of course perhaps the higher you raise the bar the greater the fall will be. After all. If you're believed to be unbeatable then even a slight loss could do a lot of damage to your reputation.

It would be good if you could save both but by doing so you lose certain elements of each. By taking the time to save the Village first you have a mage tower inside your keep destroyed by the trebuchet attacking the keep. If you save the keep first then go to the village you lose the blacksmith from the village that makes to notch plate armour.

[Medhia Nox]

@Fast Jimmy: And they should be allowed to - they paid for an experience.

People who reload for the best "write" their experience, and I find it a totally viable way to play.

I prefer to roleplay the game and face the consequences of my actions - both good and bad.

I think there is room for both, but what should NEVER be done - is to declare the person that "writes" the story an enemy, and remove choices so you can shove some edgy dark emotion down someone's throat.

I really hope there is a way to save both - and I hope that it is VERY difficult, and required forthought (like, you have to have troops with great morale and great equipment - which would have been something you had to do WAY before the event).

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 15 novembre 2013 - 03:42 .

[Pzykozis]

Well in the case of the village and the keep im really sort of torn, I like the sort of greater good / whatever seems like the best choice for you with both having fairly bleak outcomes well i just like dark and grimdark in general. But realistically the keep full of soldiers with the option of being backed up by those you meet on the road seems like it should be able to hold its own for awhile (or even just on its own) whilst the PC and his party goes to the village.

 I would never think without the game saying specifically that a castle would struggle with this fight whilst i go off for awhile to save the village, infact that to me seems more unbelievable than just saving the day and everyone being happy was for the connor decision.

Modifié par Pzykozis, 15 novembre 2013 - 03:51 .

[Inprea]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I'm torn about this.

On one hand, having story outcomes that vary depending on gameplay is something I really like. But, on the other hand, many players will just reload or drop down to easy to get the "best outcome" evey time. If that's the case, where it becomes just tedium that most players realize the ways to game the system to get the happiest outcomes, what is really gained? It isn't a darker story, it is just a game with a happy path that takes some tedium to get and also story content if you fail to get the happy path instead of a "Game Over" screen.

I'm not sure if that's the best way. Then again, binary choices via dialogue may, also, not be the best way.

I believe that's edging a little too close to trying to be the game master for people who don't want you as their game master. I'm a strong believer that greater difficulty should normally yield a greater reward. Not all the time of course as at times the more difficult choice is just foolishness. So when I'm the GM I tend to reward bonus experience, loot or stats fitted to the situation based on performance.

I'm not the game master in this case though Bioware is. So I'm just striking up a conversation about a feature I hope the game master has included. I believe it's too late at this point to actually request it. You may disagree but I believe we need to be careful not to try to game master for people who don't want us to. That's a good way to be asked to leave the table. Now we know the GM is already including a feature where players can ask for things to be a little less intense and Bioware has agreed that's a good feature. As the GM's goal is to make sure the players have a good time.

Besides does what's going on at my table influence what's going on at your table? Perhaps they're some who believe that only the highest difficult setting should allow you to reach the end of the game.

[Xilizhra]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Fast Jimmy: And they should be allowed to - they paid for an experience.

People who reload for the best "write" their experience, and I find it a totally viable way to play.

I prefer to roleplay the game and face the consequences of my actions - both good and bad.

I think there is room for both, but what should NEVER be done - is to declare the person that "writes" the story an enemy, and remove choices so you can shove some edgy dark emotion down someone's throat.

I really hope there is a way to save both - and I hope that it is VERY difficult, and required forthought (like, you have to have troops with great morale and great equipment - which would have been something you had to do WAY before the event).

So a recipe for large amounts of spoiler mapping out, then?

[Reaverwind]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I'm torn about this.

On one hand, having story outcomes that vary depending on gameplay is something I really like. But, on the other hand, many players will just reload or drop down to easy to get the "best outcome" evey time. If that's the case, where it becomes just tedium that most players realize the ways to game the system to get the happiest outcomes, what is really gained? It isn't a darker story, it is just a game with a happy path that takes some tedium to get and also story content if you fail to get the happy path instead of a "Game Over" screen.

I'm not sure if that's the best way. Then again, binary choices via dialogue may, also, not be the best way.

Having differing outcomes is something I want to see, but it needs to be done well. Regarding saving the village vs saving the keep - I don't want to see it handled like Redcliffe, which practically punished the player for making the "bad" choice without providing any real incentive for going that route.

Modifié par Reaverwind, 15 novembre 2013 - 03:51 .

[thats1evildude]

And leave the wounded? You monster.

[David7204]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I'm torn about this.

On one hand, having story outcomes that vary depending on gameplay is something I really like. But, on the other hand, many players will just reload or drop down to easy to get the "best outcome" evey time. If that's the case, where it becomes just tedium that most players realize the ways to game the system to get the happiest outcomes, what is really gained? It isn't a darker story, it is just a game with a happy path that takes some tedium to get and also story content if you fail to get the happy path instead of a "Game Over" screen.

I'm not sure if that's the best way. Then again, binary choices via dialogue may, also, not be the best way.

Learn to let go of the illusion that competence of the protagonist is 'earned' by the player.

It isn't.

Modifié par David7204, 15 novembre 2013 - 03:53 .

[Fast Jimmy]

@medhianox

I don't think "shoving some edgy dark emotion down someone's throat" is what people want. But I think that offering someone a choice and have that choice be "good" for one person, with the other choice "good" for another would be the best.

People fought vigorously about the genophage, or saving the Rachni, or the fate of the Collector Base in the ME forums, simply because people felt strongly about the decisions, mostly because ME1 and 2 did not come out and say either choice was wrong (I felt ME3 did, but that's an entirely different discussion). Same with the Mage/Templar decision at the end of DA2 - three years later, it is still being debated.

Point being, "saving everyone and being the ultimate hero" isn't a choice... its a measure of player skill and/or patience for tedium. Many players who don't get that ending feel they are being penalized, making them resentful of their outcome. That's not a good place to be - people should feel they MADE their choice, that it is something they can identify with and believe in, both the abolity to do that from their character's perspective as well as their own.

It let's people own a choice instead of just being stuck with it. I'm not saying "never allow an ounce of happiness or success in the game," but rather offer a choice that isn't clearly better to anyone who isn't brain dead.

[TheKomandorShepard]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Fast Jimmy: And they should be allowed to - they paid for an experience.

People who reload for the best "write" their experience, and I find it a totally viable way to play.

I prefer to roleplay the game and face the consequences of my actions - both good and bad.

I think there is room for both, but what should NEVER be done - is to declare the person that "writes" the story an enemy, and remove choices so you can shove some edgy dark emotion down someone's throat.

I really hope there is a way to save both - and I hope that it is VERY difficult, and required forthought (like, you have to have troops with great morale and great equipment - which would have been something you had to do WAY before the event).

You can play your character not story ,story should be cynical and dark because it is dragon age route so trying save both should end losing both but that mean that your choice is unimportant no when you decide take sane way and save keep you save that and gain reward for doing that da isn't play where you play heroic character and you win sure you can but it should be punished because it is about practical decisions if you want moralizing it will cost you like always.   

[Plaintiff]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Many players who don't get that ending feel they are being penalized, making them resentful of their outcome.

So what? They can try again, as many times as they like.

That is, in fact, how most videogames work; if you don't succeed at a task, you have to repeat it indefinitely. Anyone who has even the most basic knowledge of any videogame should be well prepared for that possibility.

[frankf43]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I'm torn about this.

On one hand, having story outcomes that vary depending on gameplay is something I really like. But, on the other hand, many players will just reload or drop down to easy to get the "best outcome" evey time. If that's the case, where it becomes just tedium that most players realize the ways to game the system to get the happiest outcomes, what is really gained? It isn't a darker story, it is just a game with a happy path that takes some tedium to get and also story content if you fail to get the happy path instead of a "Game Over" screen.

I'm not sure if that's the best way. Then again, binary choices via dialogue may, also, not be the best way.

I can't see why the problem with some people reloading the game time and again to get t he best outcome, it is their game play-through and if they want to spend the time getting their happy ever after then why not let them.

If you want to play through once taking the breaks the game gives you good and bad then that is your choice.  I do think that there should be an achievement for playing a game through once on nightmare with no reloads though.

[David7204]

Fast Jimmy wrote..

Point being, "saving everyone and being the ultimate hero" isn't a choice... its a measure of player skill and/or patience for tedium.

No. It's a story.

Fast Jimmy wrote..

It let's people own a choice instead of just being stuck with it. I'm not saying "never allow an ounce of happiness or success in the game," but rather offer a choice that isn't clearly better to anyone who isn't brain dead.

People are never 'stuck' with a choice.

Modifié par David7204, 15 novembre 2013 - 04:01 .

[Plaintiff]

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Fast Jimmy: And they should be allowed to - they paid for an experience.

People who reload for the best "write" their experience, and I find it a totally viable way to play.

I prefer to roleplay the game and face the consequences of my actions - both good and bad.

I think there is room for both, but what should NEVER be done - is to declare the person that "writes" the story an enemy, and remove choices so you can shove some edgy dark emotion down someone's throat.

I really hope there is a way to save both - and I hope that it is VERY difficult, and required forthought (like, you have to have troops with great morale and great equipment - which would have been something you had to do WAY before the event).

You can play your character not story ,story should be cynical and dark because it is dragon age route so trying save both should end losing both but that mean that your choice is unimportant no when you decide take sane way and save keep you save that and gain reward for doing that da isn't play where you play heroic character and you win sure you can but it should be punished because it is about practical decisions if you want moralizing it will cost you like always.   

Lulz, what version of Dragon Age did you play? There was no punishment at all for making nominally 'good' choices, there has never been.

[Xilizhra]

Learn to let go of the illusion that competence of the protagonist is 'earned' by the player.

It isn't.

Doesn't this vary by game? In some situations, can players not choose to be deliberately less competent?

[Medhia Nox]

@Fast Jimmy: And I'm saying that good generals would be able to save both.

I also suggested that I would hope it would require attention to your troops beforehand in other parts of the narrative.

If your troops have a high morale (a trait in the demo) - and maybe good equipment and are well trained... etc. Then I think they should have a greater chance of making a "save both" possible... because it required you to do the work ahead of time.

Which - is what a good general ought to have done...

Also - if you "do" manage to save them both - your soldiers could be very weak for whatever next encounter, which would mean THAT encounter, you would not be able to recover from completely.

I'm not talking about happy sunshine in every event... we already know that this game isn't going to wait for you (the timer of the assault) and I applaud that with every fiber of my being.

SO - with a timer, with the best possible planning, you should be able to overcome.

All opinion of course, but I find pushing nonsensical situations just to say "LOOK! Oh my god, don't you just feel so horrified." is boring... and no, I don't. I had no choice in the matter... so what do I care?

Also - my example doesn't provide for just a reloading of the scenario - it would require reloading of a far distant point where you were equipping your troops in that region. You should not have all the time in the world to do these events either.

[Xilizhra]

Also - my example doesn't provide for just a reloading of the scenario - it would require reloading of a far distant point where you were equipping your troops in that region. You should not have all the time in the world to do these events either.

Why? You're just making things annoying. This doesn't have anything to do with player skill.

[Inprea]

frankf43 wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I'm torn about this.

On one hand, having story outcomes that vary depending on gameplay is something I really like. But, on the other hand, many players will just reload or drop down to easy to get the "best outcome" evey time. If that's the case, where it becomes just tedium that most players realize the ways to game the system to get the happiest outcomes, what is really gained? It isn't a darker story, it is just a game with a happy path that takes some tedium to get and also story content if you fail to get the happy path instead of a "Game Over" screen.

I'm not sure if that's the best way. Then again, binary choices via dialogue may, also, not be the best way.

I can't see why the problem with some people reloading the game time and again to get t he best outcome, it is their game play-through and if they want to spend the time getting their happy ever after then why not let them.

If you want to play through once taking the breaks the game gives you good and bad then that is your choice.  I do think that there should be an achievement for playing a game through once on nightmare with no reloads though.

That can be fun but also oh such a nightmare. Have you ever heard of Dragon quarter? It's an old ps2 and to get the best ending in the game you have to play through it while only relying on soft saves. These are saves that delete themselves once you load them and you can only have one. So if you die you don't get to reload and try again that's just it you begin the game all over. This also happens if the power blinks.

The entire time I was going through the game I was on edge. It felt great when I finished the game but I also remember how I felt when the power went out for about 15 seconds. I was upset.

[David7204]

It does vary. There are games, mostly well-designed puzzle games, that really do test the wit and insight of the player. And of course there are a small numbers of games that occupy a niche of difficult gameplay. But for the overwhelmingly majority of games, including basically all AAA games, no, it doesn't. The industry as a whole has chosen this path. Let me be clear that this is a good thing.

Yes, the player can very often choose to be less competent, but that's not earning competence.

[TheKomandorShepard]

Plaintiff wrote...

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Fast Jimmy: And they should be allowed to - they paid for an experience.

People who reload for the best "write" their experience, and I find it a totally viable way to play.

I prefer to roleplay the game and face the consequences of my actions - both good and bad.

I think there is room for both, but what should NEVER be done - is to declare the person that "writes" the story an enemy, and remove choices so you can shove some edgy dark emotion down someone's throat.

I really hope there is a way to save both - and I hope that it is VERY difficult, and required forthought (like, you have to have troops with great morale and great equipment - which would have been something you had to do WAY before the event).

You can play your character not story ,story should be cynical and dark because it is dragon age route so trying save both should end losing both but that mean that your choice is unimportant no when you decide take sane way and save keep you save that and gain reward for doing that da isn't play where you play heroic character and you win sure you can but it should be punished because it is about practical decisions if you want moralizing it will cost you like always.   

Lulz, what version of Dragon Age did you play? There was no punishment at all for making nominally 'good' choices, there has never been.

In dao yes becaue they didn't take route that they wanted da to take they wanted stroy about sacrifices and when some quest did that right it was more experiment in da 2 sadly the take opposite route to extreme where no matter what you do everyone is going end badly for everyone and choices doesn't matter.So da is about practical choices not moral choices because it is dark story where such thing like take third option (best option) isn't best solution instead taking practical option it isn't idealistic d&d. 

Modifié par TheKomandorShepard, 15 novembre 2013 - 04:12 .